StoneMor Partners LP (STON) Major Shareholder Acquires $614760.15 in Stock

Benchmark Capital Advisors bought a new stake in shares of StoneMor Partners in the 4th quarter worth about $115,000. Finally, Chessman Wealth Strategies RIA bought a new stake in shares of StoneMor Partners in the 4th quarter worth about $118,000. Hedge funds and other institutional investors …

StoneMor Partners logoStoneMor Partners L.P. (NYSE:STON) major shareholder Fund Gp I. L.P. Oaktree bought 99,961 shares of StoneMor Partners stock in a transaction that occurred on Thursday, March 29th. The shares were acquired at an average price of $6.15 per share, for a total transaction of $614,760.15. The acquisition was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, which is available through the SEC website. Major shareholders that own 10% or more of a company’s shares are required to disclose their transactions with the SEC.

Shares of STON stock opened at $6.12 on Friday. StoneMor Partners L.P. has a 12 month low of $4.61 and a 12 month high of $10.15. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 2.24, a current ratio of 2.23 and a quick ratio of 2.23.

How to Become a New Pot Stock Millionaire

StoneMor Partners (NYSE:STON) last issued its quarterly earnings data on Friday, January 26th. The company reported ($0.25) EPS for the quarter. StoneMor Partners had a negative return on equity of 22.16% and a negative net margin of 10.42%. The firm had revenue of $84.03 million during the quarter. During the same quarter in the prior year, the company earned ($0.28) EPS. equities research analysts anticipate that StoneMor Partners L.P. will post -0.96 earnings per share for the current year.

Several equities analysts recently weighed in on STON shares. Zacks Investment Research lowered shares of StoneMor Partners from a “buy” rating to a “hold” rating in a report on Thursday, March 29th. B. Riley cut their price objective on shares of StoneMor Partners from $11.00 to $7.00 and set a “neutral” rating on the stock in a report on Tuesday, January 30th. One analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, four have issued a hold rating and one has assigned a buy rating to the company’s stock. StoneMor Partners has an average rating of “Hold” and a consensus price target of $7.00.

Hedge funds have recently modified their holdings of the business. Oaktree Capital Management LP increased its position in shares of StoneMor Partners by 145.9% in the 4th quarter. Oaktree Capital Management LP now owns 3,750,000 shares of the company’s stock worth $24,600,000 after purchasing an additional 2,225,000 shares during the last quarter. Arrow Investment Advisors LLC increased its position in shares of StoneMor Partners by 42.9% in the 4th quarter. Arrow Investment Advisors LLC now owns 114,194 shares of the company’s stock worth $749,000 after purchasing an additional 34,300 shares during the last quarter. Virtu Financial LLC bought a new stake in shares of StoneMor Partners in the 4th quarter worth about $131,000. Benchmark Capital Advisors bought a new stake in shares of StoneMor Partners in the 4th quarter worth about $115,000. Finally, Chessman Wealth Strategies RIA bought a new stake in shares of StoneMor Partners in the 4th quarter worth about $118,000. Hedge funds and other institutional investors own 41.59% of the company’s stock.

TRADEMARK VIOLATION WARNING: “StoneMor Partners L.P. (STON) Major Shareholder Acquires $614,760.15 in Stock” was originally published by Week Herald and is the sole property of of Week Herald. If you are reading this report on another publication, it was copied illegally and republished in violation of international copyright and trademark laws. The legal version of this report can be viewed at https://weekherald.com/2018/04/20/insider-buying-stonemor-partners-l-p-ston-major-shareholder-buys-614760-15-in-stock.html.

StoneMor Partners Company Profile

StoneMor Partners L.P., together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates cemeteries and funeral homes in the United States. It operates through two segments, Cemetery Operations and Funeral Home Operations. The company’s cemetery products and services include interment rights, such as burial lots, lawn crypts, mausoleum crypts, cremation niches, and perpetual care rights; merchandise comprising burial vaults, caskets, grave markers and grave marker bases, and memorials; and installation services for burial vaults, caskets, and other cemetery merchandise, as well as other service items.

Insider Buying and Selling by Quarter for StoneMor Partners (NYSE:STON)

Receive News & Ratings for StoneMor Partners Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for StoneMor Partners and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Tokenised funds to reshape PE/VC fundraising

Silicon Valley venture capital firm 500 Startups has also entered the space with its 22X Fund, which is jointly operated with Securitize Capital LLC. This vehicle permits accredited investors who purchase 22X tokens to own up to 10 per cent equity in the 22nd batch of its portfolio companies. Companies …

Initial coin offers (ICOs) and the emergence of tokenised funds — represented by the issue of equity tokens — are set to reshape the dynamics of how private equity (PE) and venture capital (VC) fund managers raise capital, bringing greater transparency and democratisation to the fund management space.

Equity tokens, also known as security tokens, are tokenised securities which derive their value from an external, tradeable asset and are subject to securities regulations. In Singapore’s case — given its status as the largest centre for ICOs in Asia as at 2017— such securities products fall under the remit of the Securities & Futures Act (SFA).

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) currently notes that digital tokens can function in the role of a utility token that offers benefits in the form of goods or services, or an equity token that operates as an offer of shares, units in a collective investment scheme or a debenture; current regulations require issuers of security tokens to lodge a prospectus with the MAS, with online exchanges that facilitate their trading requiring approval.

How smart contracts work.

The use of equity tokens serves to disintermediate the use of private placement agents, who often serve as intermediaries between the various limited partners (LPs) — foundations, endowments, family offices, trusts, corporates, fund of Funds (FoFs), insurance firms, state funds, pension funds and other players — and the fund managers that look to engage them.

An additional layer of protection that the use of equity tokens in an ICOs could offer is the use of smart contracts, as exemplified by the Ethereum blockchain. Fundamentally, it offers a decentralised and more democratic tool for fund managers to raise capital.

How permissioned blockchains work in smart contracts. [Link]. Credit: Capgemini Consulting

Tokenised venture funds

In Singapore, the Based on Blockchain Fund (BB Fund), whose launch was announced by LifeSREDA.VC in May 2016, is planning to conduct an initial coin offer (ICO) in Singapore. This could make it the first fund based out of Southeast Asia to raise funds through a security token sale, which has emerged as a new financing option for startup ventures, as well as offering benefits to both LPs and fund managers in terms of transparency and democratisation.

Silicon Valley venture capital firm 500 Startups has also entered the space with its 22X Fund, which is jointly operated with Securitize Capital LLC. This vehicle permits accredited investors who purchase 22X tokens to own up to 10 per cent equity in the 22nd batch of its portfolio companies.

Companies that form this particular fund have collectively raised over $20 million, with financial backers including institutional investors such as 500 Startups, Accenture and Deutsche Bank. The 22X Fund aims to raise up to $35 million which will be deployed immediately and invested on a pro-rata basis in the equity of participating early-stage ventures.

Investors in this fund can purchase 22X tokens with Bitcoin, Ethereum, USD or other currencies, with the tokens enabling ownership of up to 10 per cent in each participating firm. Proceeds from the fund are distributed pro rata to participating companies capped at $1 million, with token holders able to trade tokens after a year and receive proceeds from liquidity events.

Meanwhile, two organisations in the Indo-Asia Pacific (IAPAC) which have engaged in ICOs to raise capital for their funds are Starta Accelerator, which raised $5 million, and Finshi Capital, which raised $21.4 million. Such developments come at a time when venture capitalists in the city-state are worried about its impact on their sector.

Investment process of BB Fund. Credit: Life.SREDA

The BB Fund — which has not issued tokens to date — is aiming to raise a corpus of $200 million, with its first close at $50 million. It plans to concentrate on enterprises operating in the blockchain and financial technology sector. It will target investments at the pre-ICO (pre-sale), ICO, as well as pre-seed, seed and Series A funding rounds, with an investment cycle of three years.

The BB Fund will be issuing the BB Token and has capped its supply at 1 million tokens priced at $200 and fixed in Ethereum (ETH), with investors able to trade tokens on the funds’ trading desk during the annual redemption period. According to the funds’ website, the BB Token represents the share of investor’s ownership in the BB Fund and is “collateralised by a portfolio of underlying tokens”.

In an email exchange with this portal, Igor Pesin, the CFO of BB Fund and LifeSREDA’s investment director, explains: “While we see several ICOs made by investment funds, most of them are not using equity token (meaning positioning it as a security) and do not follow the regulatory rules, related to securities. During such fundraisings even necessary KYC, risk assessment and compliance procedures (AML, CTF, PEP checks) are usually are not executed, and the source of funds and source of wealth assessment are never done, which are obligatory in dealing with securities.”

He adds, “Equity tokens are just starting to appear on the market and mainly introduced by already established and experienced players because this is much more complicated and demanding approach than fundraising via utility tokens.”

According to Pesin, the use of equity tokens raises legal complexities in terms of raising a fund in a jurisdictions like the US or Singapore, where ICOs can fall within the remit of the SFA if the ICO deals with a securities product, particularly with regard to due diligence elements such as KYC (know-your-client), AML (anti-money laundering), CTF (counter-terrorist financing) and PEP (politically exposed person) checks.

Raising a fund in Singapore also comes with regular internal and external audits, as well as additional requirements for information disclosure.

As for the liquidity options of LPs? Pesin elaborates: “Investors in those tokenized funds, which are structured in a proper and compliant way, get the same rights as in a classical limited partnership, meaning they own a share of underlying assets in the fund. Regarding the liquidity, they have several options for selling their equity or tokens to another accredited investor, they can redeem their stake or they can just wait for profit distribution after each successful exit.”

Venture capital funds raised via ICO as at October 2017. Credit: BB Fund

Fundraising dynamics

Goh Sze-Hui, a corporate partner in Eversheds Harry Elias,whose practice areas cover cross-border mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, corporate finance and corporate restructuring, see’s the ICO phenomenon as a fluid and evolving space given its relative youth.

Asked for her take on issues surrounding the FundCoin ICO of the Dutch asset management firm Finles Capital — which would have been the first ICO by a private equity fund but was eventually suspended — Goh tells this portal that the matter highlights key points private equity players need to be aware of.

Structure of Lowestoft Private Equity Fund. Credit: Finles Capital

She explains: “Firstly, there is the question of choosing the jurisdiction for an ICO. As the article states, for example, many ICOs actively seek to exclude US investors, and for many ICOs this can be a reflection of (i) a lack of financial means to back an ICO in certain countries, and (ii) a lack of understanding of the relevant regulatory regime, and so a desire to exclude it.”

“Less common, however, as an option that should be seriously considered when performing an ICO, is whether to, instead of listing countries where an ICO is excluded, rather list the countries where the ICO is to be performed. This would allow the ICO provider to properly consider the framework where they are providing the ICO, and, since as a general rule of thumb marketing / financial promotion rules which apply are those in the country where the token is sold, makes it easier to be sure tokens are sold in compliance with all applicable regulation.”

“Secondly, and following on from the above, most countries will have a local regime for protecting investors. Therefore, just excluding investors from certain countries from investing does not equate to being able to do whatever you want in and ICO. Generally, all countries, for example, have rules against fraud and misrepresentation, which apply regardless of whether an activity is a so-called “regulated activity” or not.”

The growth of ICOs has also seen the emergence of platforms like Waves and CoinLaunch, which aim to simplify the ICO process and enable businesses to issue their own digital tokens and manage their ICOs.

Goh believes that such platforms are beneficial to both regulators, investors and entrepreneurs. She says, “These platforms can form a dual purpose. They can both facilitate the ICO process, as well as provide a validation mechanism (i.e. only ICOs of a certain quality may be accepted on a platform). As such, they are like to become increasingly popular as they form a framework beneficial to both the investor and the entity launching the ICO.”

“They also provide a natural hub of experts, who can then engage with regulators when developing the regulatory framework, as well as a mechanism for regulatory enforcement of that framework, as parties can be blocked from accessing the platform if they do not meet prescribed requirements. The exact end result if, of course, uncertain, given the nascent nature of these platforms, but there is definite potential form them to play a significant role ahead.”

Meanwhile, Robin Lee, the CEO of HelloGold — a startup which closed a $4 million venture investment and raised capital from an ICO — and former CFO of the World Gold Foundation, opines: “As long as you adhere to existing regulations, I think in many ways it can have a lot of benefits, the most obvious being safety and transparency as you can democratise fundraising.”

“Traditionally, LPs write cheques to the VCs, but equity token sales give a broader pool of people a chance to gain exposure to the venture capital asset class and for VCs to raise more capital. That’s the theory anyway. Realistically, VCs fund managers will have to follow securities regulations regarding fundraising in the jurisdictions they are based in, which remain unchanged.”

He adds, “While I’m not sure of the benefits it would bring to the table, theoretically because of its blockchain basis and smart contract governance, it’s more transparent. If you’re a new fund trying to raise money, it may be an easier approach.”

Lee observes that while tokens have enabled investors to enjoy more rapid liquidity, he also notes that its possible for people to purchase tokens that cannot be redeemed for up to five years.

“If VCs were to raise funds and then focus on a non-traditional space, that makes a lot of difference; it depends on the rules that fund managers establish on the smart contract. The liquidity option for VC funds can see them liquidate in a month but pay it out in five years. The security token for your fund could the funds you’re allocating being frozen for the next five years before being redeemed.”

Securities regulations for ICOs

Currently, the US uses the Howey Test to determine what a security product is and has applied this to ICOs.Asked if she saw regulations moving to align with targeted regulations by the likes of Japan’s Financial Services Agency (FSA) as the sector matures, or aligning with the approach taken by the SEC that some construe as regressive, Goh notes: “The MAS has recently published “A Guide to Digital Token Offerings”, which indicates that a functional approach to regulatory classification of ICOs will be taken.”

Credit: CB Insights

“This is a common approach taken by regulators in the US and the UK. Currently, there are around 1000 cryptocurrencies in existence, with a wide range of functionality and uses. As such, regulators will need to be careful that the regulatory regime put in place for cryptocurrencies is adaptable enough to cater for their wide range of possible uses.”

“Given this is the case, and given the need to ensure that cryptocurrencies do not become a way of mimicking existing structures without out proper regulation, currently, the functional approach suggested by the MAS is a sensible way forward.”

And at a time when ICOs are being launched from jurisdictions such as the US, Switzerland, Singapore, Canada and the UK, Goh see’s a consensus regarding ICO regulations being eventually achieved on an international basis as the ICO market matures.

She observes: “ICOs are a global phenomenon, and one of their advantages is that they can be used as a mechanism to attract global investment. However, legal systems are designed on a national level, which means that there can be national, and sometimes even regional, variation as regards which rules apply to any given scenario.”

“One way to counter this would be to obtain international agreement on a set of standards which would apply to ICOs which would then apply globally. However, this can be hard to achieve in practice, as different regulators are still forming their view on how favourably to treat ICOs.”

“ Even if a broad agreement were reached, countries may well still differ on the practical detail of what has been agreed, for example, most regulators would agree that if an investor is wronged the investor should be compensation, but there is no universal concept of what “compensation” actually means.”

While the city-state of Singapore has no intention to regulate cryptocurrencies at this time, it already requires virtual-currency intermediaries such as exchange operators to comply with requirements to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. In addition, it is considering placing ICOs in a regulatory sandbox.

Singapore’s brand strength also lies in its reputation as a relatively clean city with firm rules and as an established financial centre, with the city-state’s government prosecuting businesses that misbehave. Dr Finian Tan of Vickers Ventures, one of the largest and oldest venture capital (VC) firms in Southeast Asia, has argued for the need of caveat emptor to prevail when it comes to ICOs.

Asked if regulations could see utility tokens being open to all investor categories but equity tokens restricted to accredited and professional investors as a way to balance the interests of investors and ICO issuers, Goh opines: “The concept of caveat emptor is a curious one as, even in Roman times, it was based on the fact that there was information symmetry between buyer and seller, and so each could independently assess the asset being sold.”

“However, in respect to ICOs, very few investors, even those who are fully accredited and professional, can say that they understand all aspects of how ICOs work. The genesis of caveat emptor, namely that the buyer can check the product being bought for himself, does not apply here, as the buyer is unable to fully check the product, but rather must rely on others to assert its validity.”

She concludes: “In fact, our experience is that many of those launching ICOs are, in fact, keen not to take too restrictive an approach towards regulatory and legal compliance, because of the ability to confirm that an ICO meets certain regulatory and legal standards gives that ICO legitimacy, certainty and, hopefully, greater value.”

“Therefore, we do not see a world in which security tokens will necessary never be open to retail investors, as firms may well be happy to meet retail standards to be able to sell to retail. Conversely, having a utility coin does not guarantee simplicity and security, and so it may well be that sales of these tokens are restricted to only some types of investors in some circumstances. The overall picture, therefore, may well not neatly fall within the security token/utility token divide.”

See:

FundedHere to expand to growth markets of Indonesia & Malaysia, exploring Series A: Daniel Lin, FundedHere

Crypto-tokens & ICOs to be further integrated into financial ecosystem amid strengthening of PE/VC & securities market: Monetary Authority of Singapore

ASEAN sees deficits in Series B financing and risk pricing : Kelvin Lee, Fundnel

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

A Look at What’s Behind the Ratios For Cineworld Group plc (LSE:CINE)

In trying to determine the current valuation of Cineworld Group plc (LSE:CINE) shares, we note that the Book to Market ratio of the shares stands at 0.226093. It’s commonly accepted that a Book to Market ratio greater than one indicates that the shares might be undervalued. The book to market ratio has …

In trying to determine the current valuation of Cineworld Group plc (LSE:CINE) shares, we note that the Book to Market ratio of the shares stands at 0.226093. It’s commonly accepted that a Book to Market ratio greater than one indicates that the shares might be undervalued. The book to market ratio has some limitations in certain industries however where intangible assets (such as knowledge) often are not represented on a balance sheet. The ratio is calculated by dividing the market price per share by book value per share.

Cineworld Group plc (LSE:CINE) presently has a current ratio of 0.85. The current ratio, also known as the working capital ratio, is a liquidity ratio that displays the proportion of current assets of a business relative to the current liabilities. The ratio is simply calculated by dividing current liabilities by current assets. The ratio may be used to provide an idea of the ability of a certain company to pay back its liabilities with assets. Typically, the higher the current ratio the better, as the company may be more capable of paying back its obligations.

Return on Assets

There are many different tools to determine whether a company is profitable or not. One of the most popular ratios is the “Return on Assets” (aka ROA). This score indicates how profitable a company is relative to its total assets. The Return on Assets for Cineworld Group plc (LSE:CINE) is 0.077582. This number is calculated by dividing net income after tax by the company’s total assets. A company that manages their assets well will have a higher return, while a company that manages their assets poorly will have a lower return.

Cineworld Group plc (LSE:CINE)’s Leverage Ratio was recently noted as 0.255853. This ratio is calculated by dividing total debt by total assets plus total assets previous year, divided by two. The leverage of a company is relative to the amount of debt on the balance sheet. This ratio is often viewed as one measure of the financial health of a firm.

ERP5 Rank

The ERP5 Rank is an investment tool that analysts use to discover undervalued companies. The ERP5 looks at the Price to Book ratio, Earnings Yield, ROIC and 5 year average ROIC. The ERP5 of Cineworld Group plc (LSE:CINE) is 6777. The lower the ERP5 rank, the more undervalued a company is thought to be.

FCF Yield 5yr Avg

The FCF Yield 5yr Average is calculated by taking the five year average free cash flow of a company, and dividing it by the current enterprise value. Enterprise Value is calculated by taking the market capitalization plus debt, minority interest and preferred shares, minus total cash and cash equivalents. The average FCF of a company is determined by looking at the cash generated by operations of the company. The Free Cash Flow Yield 5 Year Average of Cineworld Group plc (LSE:CINE) is 0.010621.

Ever wonder how investors predict positive share price momentum? The Cross SMA 50/200, also known as the “Golden Cross” is the fifty day moving average divided by the two hundred day moving average. The SMA 50/200 for Cineworld Group plc (LSE:CINE) is currently 0.42539. If the Golden Cross is greater than 1, then the 50 day moving average is above the 200 day moving average – indicating a positive share price momentum. If the Golden Cross is less than 1, then the 50 day moving average is below the 200 day moving average, indicating that the price might drop.

Magic Formula

The MF Rank (aka the Magic Formula) is a formula that pinpoints a valuable company trading at a good price. The formula is calculated by looking at companies that have a high earnings yield as well as a high return on invested capital. The MF Rank of Cineworld Group plc (LSE:CINE) is 6279. A company with a low rank is considered a good company to invest in. The Magic Formula was introduced in a book written by Joel Greenblatt, entitled, “The Little Book that Beats the Market”.

Stock volatility is a percentage that indicates whether a stock is a desirable purchase. Investors look at the Volatility 12m to determine if a company has a low volatility percentage or not over the course of a year. The Volatility 12m of Cineworld Group plc (LSE:CINE) is 90.4856. This is calculated by taking weekly log normal returns and standard deviation of the share price over one year annualized. The lower the number, a company is thought to have low volatility. The Volatility 3m is a similar percentage determined by the daily log normal returns and standard deviation of the share price over 3 months. The Volatility 3m of Cineworld Group plc (LSE:CINE) is 153.546. The Volatility 6m is the same, except measured over the course of six months. The Volatility 6m is 114.884.

Yield



After a recent scan, we can see that Cineworld Group plc (LSE:CINE) has a Shareholder Yield of 0.06292 and a Shareholder Yield (Mebane Faber) of -4.00147. The first value is calculated by adding the dividend yield to the percentage of repurchased shares. The second value adds in the net debt repaid yield to the calculation. Shareholder yield has the ability to show how much money the firm is giving back to shareholders via a few different avenues. Companies may issue new shares and buy back their own shares. This may occur at the same time. Investors may also use shareholder yield to gauge a baseline rate of return.

Receive News & Ratings Via Email – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

26994 Shares in Fidelity National Financial (FNF) Acquired by Elkfork Partners LLC

A number of other institutional investors also recently made changes to their positions in FNF. HBK Investments L P boosted its position in shares of Fidelity National Financial by 213.8% in the fourth quarter. HBK Investments L P now owns 131,800 shares of the financial services provider’s stock valued …

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Two Sigma Investments LP Acquires 113680 Shares of PennantPark Investment Co. (NASDAQ …

Two Sigma Investments LP raised its position in shares of PennantPark Investment Co. (NASDAQ:PNNT) by 30.4% in the 4th quarter, according to the company in its most recent disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The institutional investor owned 487,564 shares of the asset …

PennantPark Investment logoTwo Sigma Investments LP raised its position in shares of PennantPark Investment Co. (NASDAQ:PNNT) by 30.4% in the 4th quarter, according to the company in its most recent disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The institutional investor owned 487,564 shares of the asset manager’s stock after buying an additional 113,680 shares during the period. Two Sigma Investments LP owned about 0.69% of PennantPark Investment worth $3,369,000 as of its most recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Several other institutional investors also recently modified their holdings of the stock. Northern Trust Corp acquired a new stake in PennantPark Investment during the 2nd quarter worth $302,000. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company boosted its position in shares of PennantPark Investment by 552.6% during the second quarter. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company now owns 28,044 shares of the asset manager’s stock worth $207,000 after purchasing an additional 23,747 shares in the last quarter. Macquarie Group Ltd. bought a new position in shares of PennantPark Investment during the third quarter worth $511,000. Legal & General Group Plc boosted its position in shares of PennantPark Investment by 12.6% during the third quarter. Legal & General Group Plc now owns 201,040 shares of the asset manager’s stock worth $1,507,000 after purchasing an additional 22,424 shares in the last quarter. Finally, JPMorgan Chase & Co. lifted its position in PennantPark Investment by 6.6% in the 3rd quarter. JPMorgan Chase & Co. now owns 1,866,419 shares of the asset manager’s stock valued at $14,016,000 after acquiring an additional 115,209 shares in the last quarter. 42.87% of the stock is owned by institutional investors and hedge funds.

How to Become a New Pot Stock Millionaire

NASDAQ:PNNT traded down $0.08 on Thursday, hitting $6.89. The company had a trading volume of 165,887 shares, compared to its average volume of 330,983. The company has a market cap of $496.71, a price-to-earnings ratio of 8.72, a PEG ratio of 4.68 and a beta of 1.13. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.79, a current ratio of 3.03 and a quick ratio of 3.03. PennantPark Investment Co. has a 52 week low of $6.29 and a 52 week high of $8.17.

PennantPark Investment (NASDAQ:PNNT) last announced its quarterly earnings results on Wednesday, February 7th. The asset manager reported $0.20 earnings per share (EPS) for the quarter, beating the Thomson Reuters’ consensus estimate of $0.18 by $0.02. PennantPark Investment had a net margin of 41.17% and a return on equity of 8.58%. The firm had revenue of $28.67 million during the quarter, compared to analysts’ expectations of $28.12 million. During the same period in the prior year, the company posted $0.21 EPS. The company’s revenue was down 10.0% on a year-over-year basis. analysts expect that PennantPark Investment Co. will post 0.75 EPS for the current year.

The company also recently disclosed a quarterly dividend, which was paid on Monday, April 2nd. Stockholders of record on Monday, March 19th were given a dividend of $0.18 per share. This represents a $0.72 annualized dividend and a dividend yield of 10.45%. The ex-dividend date was Friday, March 16th. PennantPark Investment’s dividend payout ratio (DPR) is presently 91.14%.

PNNT has been the topic of several research reports. TheStreet raised shares of PennantPark Investment from a “c” rating to a “b-” rating in a research report on Thursday, March 29th. ValuEngine cut shares of PennantPark Investment from a “strong-buy” rating to a “buy” rating in a research report on Friday, February 2nd. Zacks Investment Research upgraded shares of PennantPark Investment from a “hold” rating to a “buy” rating and set a $7.75 price objective on the stock in a research note on Wednesday, April 11th. Ladenburg Thalmann upgraded shares of PennantPark Investment from a “neutral” rating to a “buy” rating and set a $8.00 price objective on the stock in a research note on Friday, February 9th. Finally, BidaskClub upgraded shares of PennantPark Investment from a “strong sell” rating to a “sell” rating in a research note on Saturday, February 10th. One investment analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, three have assigned a hold rating, four have given a buy rating and one has given a strong buy rating to the company’s stock. The company currently has an average rating of “Buy” and an average price target of $8.21.

In other news, Chairman Arthur H. Penn acquired 10,000 shares of the firm’s stock in a transaction dated Friday, February 9th. The stock was bought at an average cost of $6.94 per share, for a total transaction of $69,400.00. Following the completion of the transaction, the chairman now directly owns 193,410 shares in the company, valued at approximately $1,342,265.40. The acquisition was disclosed in a document filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which can be accessed through this hyperlink. Corporate insiders own 2.00% of the company’s stock.

COPYRIGHT VIOLATION WARNING: “Two Sigma Investments LP Acquires 113,680 Shares of PennantPark Investment Co. (NASDAQ:PNNT)” was published by StockNewsTimes and is owned by of StockNewsTimes. If you are accessing this piece on another domain, it was stolen and republished in violation of US & international copyright & trademark laws. The original version of this piece can be read at https://stocknewstimes.com/2018/04/19/two-sigma-investments-lp-boosts-stake-in-pennantpark-investment-corp-pnnt.html.

PennantPark Investment Company Profile

PennantPark Investment Corporation is a closed-end, non-diversified investment company. The Company is a business development company. Its objectives are to generate both current income and capital appreciation while seeking to preserve capital through debt and equity investments primarily made to the United States middle-market companies in the form of senior secured debt, mezzanine debt and equity investments.

Institutional Ownership by Quarter for PennantPark Investment (NASDAQ:PNNT)

Receive News & Ratings for PennantPark Investment Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for PennantPark Investment and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts